Bey v. Brock & Scott, PLLC
3:09-cv-00423
W.D.N.C.Mar 29, 2011Background
- Bey, acting pro se, filed a federal suit in 2009 challenging a state foreclosure involving Bernadette Ervin on property at 17313 Knoxwood Dr, Huntersville, NC.
- Bey sought various reliefs and attempted to remove the state foreclosure to federal court, but removal was improper and Bey was not a party to the underlying foreclosure proceeding.
- The named defendants include MERS, Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans, First Magnus, and Stewart Title Guaranty Company; Brock & Scott, PLLC was substituted as trustee.
- Bey claimed violations of various statutes and acts (National Currency Act, HJR 192, UCC 3-601 to 604, CFR, fraud theories, and TILA), but the relationship between Bey and Ervin was unclear.
- Defendants asserted Bey had no contractual privity to the Note/Deed of Trust or foreclosure, and Ervin did not appeal the foreclosure order.
- The court dismissed the case for lack of standing and as an improper collateral attack on a state foreclosure proceeding; Bey did not tender payment or show a right to relief in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bey have standing to challenge the foreclosure in federal court? | Bey claims status as living secured party/trustee for Ervin. | Bey is not a party to the loan or foreclosure; no standing. | No standing; Bey lacks injury in fact and privity to the transaction. |
| Is there subject-matter jurisdiction given removal and plaintiff's standing? | Remedy in federal court is appropriate; removal attempted. | Removal improper; Bey not a party; no jurisdiction. | Subject-matter jurisdiction lacking; dismissal granted. |
| Is the complaint an improper collateral attack on state foreclosure? | Foreclosure invalid or satisfied debt; seeks relief via federal process. | Claims improperly attack state proceedings; remedies exist in state court. | Yes; improper collateral attack; dismissal affirmed. |
| Do defendants have related liability given Bey’s lack of connection to the underlying debt? | Bey’s relationship to Ervin supports relief. | No contractual or statutory relation to the loan or foreclosure. | Lack of connection defeats claims against defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing and jurisdiction require a case or controversy)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing as a core jurisdictional requirement in Article III cases)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (pleading sufficient to support jurisdictional requirements; burden on plaintiff)
- Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2009) (standing burden on plaintiff to show proper jurisdiction)